Incorporation Doctrine Flashcards
Categories of Speech Content that Justify Govt. Restriction:
i. Incitement – listeners will react violently against 3Ps (Brandenburg)
ii. Fighting words – listeners will be violent against speaker
(Chaplinsky modified by Cohen)
iii. True threats (Elonis)
iv. Perjury (Alvarez)
v. Tortious Speech (defamation/libel/slander, invasion of privacy, IIED)
vi. Obscenity
vii. Child pornography (Miller)
viii. Porn distributed to minors (Ginsberg)
ix. Commercial speech
Schenck Test (Not Current Law)
- Do these words under these circumstances create a clear and
present danger of a result that the law is allowed to forbid?
Brandenburg Test
For Incitement:
1) The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2) The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Chaplinsky
- Jehovah’s witness called marshal a “G-d racketeer” and a “damned facist” because marshal did nothing when crowd beat him up and called him epithets. S. Ct. upheld conviction, concluding fighting words are not protected by First Amendment.
- Fighting words test has since been modified by Cohen
Cohen
Guy wearing “F- the Draft” jacket was arrested for willfully and
maliciously disturbing the peace. S. Ct. overturned conviction.
Fighting Words Test
1. Fighting words – words which likely tend to incite immediate
lawlessness
a. Govt. must prove these circumstances would likely lead to
immediate fighting (against speaker)
b. Most encounters that satisfy incitement and fighting words
will be face-to-face
Watts
- Man threatened President’s life
- Political hyperbole must be distinguished from true threats
Elonis
- Man posted horrible rap lyrics and statement that it was crime to say he wanted to kill his ex
- Open question: must gov’t prove subjective intent?
- If Not defined in statute = S. Ct. will interpret statute to require intent
Alvarez
- Man lied about receiving Medal of Honor and was convicted under Cong. Act
- S. Ct. held 1st Amendment protected lie
- Proper remedy for a lie is to combat it with truth
a. Policy reasons for not creating speech category for lying…
Obscenity
- Porn is protected speech unless it falls into the obscene category
- All obscenity must be at least pornographic
a. Legal definition differs from common usage - Porn – someone is supposed to find it erotic
a. Doesn’t matter if you, subjectively, don’t find it erotic
Miller Test (Obscenity)
(1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’
(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
a. Value is determined by jury as instructed by expert
testimony in order to avoid community censorship of books
that have serious value
b. Prurient = causing/encouraging an excessive interest in sex
Stanley
- State not allowed to apply obscenity laws to materials viewed in
home (even if Miller test is met) - Home = castle; you can view whatever obscene materials you want
Ginsberg
- Statute prohibiting sale of nude pics and pics harmful to minors
- S. Ct. upheld conviction; state interest in banning sale to minors
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n
- Law tried to ban video games based on violence
- S. Ct. struck down law; refused to create new category in speech
content list - Thus, Strict Scrutiny. applied and govt. failed narrowly tailored prong (no scientific evid. that violent video games lead to violent behavior)
Paris Adult Theater I
- Adult theater showing explicit movies to public
- States have a legitimate interest in regulating commerce in obscene material and regulating exhibition of obscene material in places of public accommodation
- Difference from Stanley: this was a commercial enterprise
Commercial Speech
Speech that merely proposed commercial transaction (ads)
- If speech contains additional info about topics like health, politics, public policy, the Court will make case-by-case determination if all speech will count as commercial speech (and can be regulated)